THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

While Sun-Sara World was the inspiration for this email I recently sent, it is dedicated to Code Pink, Moveon.org, The Daily Kos, and every other organization that makes me proud to be a republican. As someone who personally associates with “normal” liberals, and counts some of them as my close (yet misguided) friends, I only hope that leftist protesters continue to party like it’s 1968. Now, Sun-Sara, you adorable lil screecher:

I had no idea who you were until 5 minutes before this email. Then I saw you on Fox News. I was delighted the moment you opened your mouth.

I want you to speak loudly and clearly. I want you and your followers to shout from

the rooftops. I want you to be known to every person in America.

I am a conservative republican who disagrees with you on most issues. So why 

would I want you to continue? 

Because you are the gift that keeps on giving. Even if most Americans are against the

war, they are in favor of civilized discourse. Shouting people down is not civilized.

Again, as a conservative republican, watching you and the Code Pinkos rip into

Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is hysterical fun. For me it is

Roman dinner theatre, with you being the lions, or more appropriately, jackals.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, but given that you would yell

at someone who agrees with you on most issues makes you look unreasonable.

If you look at the last 10 presidential elections, the candidate who was MORE

LIKEABLE won the election. Had Howard "screamin" Dean won the nomination,

he would have gone the way of Mondale and McGovern.

Just because people may agree with you on the war does not mean they support

rude tactics over civilized discussion. Many people disagree with the president,

but they do not hate his guts. THE MORE STRIDENT YOUR RHETORIC, THE

MORE AVERAGE AMERICANS SAY "I do not agree with Bush, but his critics

are lunatics."

To be honest, I hope you ignore every word I say, because I am looking forward to 

see the democratic party rip itself to shreds as they did in 1968.

Keep screaming and leading protest rallies. My side will continue to win presidential 

elections, except when democrats nominate politicians who pretend to be republicans. 

Keep shouting. My republican friends will tivo your rallies and play them in campaign

commercials. You-tube was made for you. 

Do not think this is reverse psychology. I GENUINELY want you to keep doing

exactly what you are doing, the very way you are doing it. 

eric

P.S. On virtually every issue that matters, you're wrong. 

That can wait for another time.

I received an email to recommend that congress censure President Bush.Rather than delete the email, I decided to offer an alternative point of view. First of all let me say that the sender of the email is someone that is near and dear to me. I hold her in high regard for her friendship and her intellect. Having said that, debate is vital to the health of our nation. In the tradition of Lincoln vs Douglas & Kennedy vs Nixon, I offer a view diametrically opposed to what those who favor censure have presented.

The war critics are guilty of one mistake that many writers & politicos make…a
lack of full disclosure. Many against the war are on the left politically, and are committed to the defeat of President Bush. If this IRAQ war had never happened, these people would have found another cause. This is not in any way an attempt to minimize passions on this issue, but most of these critics are not centrists. They are partisans. So let me engage in full disclosure by saying I am a partisan as well, a staunch supporter of the President. I would probably be voting for him no matter what. Having said that, here is my rebuttal to this woman’s email, devoid of any emotion, filled with only logical reasoning.

1) David Kay did say the statements that appear on the surface to support the anti-war crowd. However, those statements were not taken in their complete context. Mr. Kay has also said that Saddam Hussein was ACTIVELY TRYING to get weapons of mass destruction. The fact that he may not have succeeded was not for lack of effort. Mr. Kay
believed Saddam Hussein was a threat to world stability, which is why he joined President Bush’s commission concerning this issue. We do know that Saddam Hussein DID USE these weapons in the past. Therefore, if he had the chance to use them again, it is logical to think he would. He used poison gas on the Kurds, & he lobbed scud missiles at Israel. He invaded a sovereign nation of Kuwait, & set their nation on fire. He also murdered a million of his own people. Based on these facts alone, a preemptive strike
is justified. Other nations have used preemptive strikes (Israel in 1967), and on some occasions that should be seen as right. It would have been dangerous to wait for Hussein to acquire the weapons again, at which point the U.S. would be subject to blackmail.

2) President Bush has been called a liar. We are told that he lied so we
could go to war. That is a very serious charge, & I am a firm believer that
if someone is going to bring a charge on another human being’s integrity,
that charge must be substantiated. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush
deliberately lied. Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky. While that is
not as serious as an issue involving war, that is the definition of a lie.
George Bush Senior lied when he broke his “read my lips” no new taxes
pledge. Again, not as serious…but a lie nonetheless. IF…and I stress the
word IF…President Bush was given faulty intelligence information, it is
vital to find out why the information was flawed. It is also important to
understand that this was the same information Bill Clinton relied on (Tommy
Franks was appointed by Clinton), and that democrats on the Intelligence
committee had this exact same information. John Kerry had this information,
and he voted for the war. It is possible that President Bush, Bill Clinton &
John Kerry were all LIED TO…but that does not make them liars on this
issue. It is also possible that noone lied to anyone, but that the flawed
intelligence was an HONEST MISTAKE. A colossal mistake, but again that does
not mean anyone lied.

3) I keep using the word possible, because we do not even know that a
mistake even occurred. We have not found WMD YET. That does not mean WMD
does not exist, but that we have not found them YET. We may never find them,
but that does not mean they did not exist. It is POSSIBLE THE INFORMATION
THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED WAS CORRECT, & THAT HUSSEIN EFFECTIVELY HID THE WEAPONS. IT IS NOT EASY TO FIND SOMETHING IN A WHOLE COUNTRY THAT COULD FIT IN THE SIZE OF THE HOLE HUSSEIN WAS FOUND IN.

3 1/2) A theological argument…I cannot prove God exists. I take it on
faith. The atheists cannot prove God does not exist. Now I am NOT implying
that the President be taken on blind faith, but it is not possible to say he
lied just because we have not seen the evidence YET. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN
THAT THE WEAPONS DID NOT EXIST.

4) If Hussein had no WMD, why did he keep kicking inspectors out? Perhaps he
wanted the world to THINK he was more powerful than he really was. This is a
justification for removing him, since if we act based on a perception he
gives us, we should not feel bad when we act. If this scenario is true,
HUSSEIN LIED, NOT President Bush. A good parallel to this involves suicide
bombers. If a group takes responsibility for a terrorist act such as a
suicide bombing that they actually did NOT commit, should they be punished
for merely SAYING they did? ABSOLUTELY. Confessing to a violent crime is an
attempt at intimidation, and that can only be countered with force that
removes such behavior.

5) Saddam violated Rule 1441. Rule 1441 was NOT about inspections, as Colin
Powell pointed out. It was about the disarmament of IRAQ. When sanctions
were eased under the “oil for food” program, Saddam did NOT use the oil
revenues for food. This has been proven. That was a violation of Rule 1441,
which again justifies invasion.

6) Now I will offer an argument that most politicians will not have the guts
to argue, not even republican politicians. WMD as an issue is IRRELEVANT.
Did Saddam have WMD? Who cares? I honestly do not. He was a ruthless madman
who killed many people. He invaded sovereign nations. He was a threat to
world stability based on his actions during the Gulf War. HE REPEATEDLY
DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, PROMISING THE MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES. For those who think he was only bluffing, DO WE HAVE TO WAIT TO BE ATTACKED?

7) The world is better off with Hussein captured. The Iraqi people are free.
The fact that the news keeps showing how upset the Iraqis are with the USA
is a one-sided misrepresentation. The Iraqis do not want Hussein back. Most
Iraqis worship at the altar of American freedom fighters, and they should.
Libya’s Khadafi decided to try and become “normal” after the war. This was
not because of years of negotiation, but because he saw the handwriting on
the wall. Iran & Syria are getting nervous. When words are backed by
actions, words have meaning. President Bush’s words & actions have our
enemies nervous. That is a fabulous aftereffect in terms of a deterrent.

8 ) The President has an OBLIGATION to protect the USA. That means whether it
be Bin Laden or Hussein, anyone who succeeds in attacking America (Bin
Laden) or EVEN TALKS ABOUT IT (Hussein) is a target.

9) Move-on.org–whenever reading an article, always look at the SOURCE. I
disclosed my partisan affiliation. Moveon.org is a left wing organization
that has compared Bush to Adolf Hitler. As the son of a holocaust survivor,
I find that beyond offensive. While it may seem unfair to link everone who
supports an organization to that organization’s beliefs, most of
Moveon.org’s supporters HAVE A PERSONAL HATRED FOR PRESIDENT BUSH THAT GOES BEYOND RATIONAL DEBATE (read the website for evidence of this).

10) My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones. I cannot
begin to imagine their pain. I have a cousin who was separated from his
family for over a year due to his HONORABLE SERVICE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.
He just came back home . The men & women in our military are heroes, and
they deserve to be treated as such. HOWEVER, SERVICE IN THE MILITARY IS
VOLUNTARY. As awful as it is that anti-war critics’ friends and family (and my cousin) are/were in harms way, THEY MADE A CHOICE TO SERVE. I choose not to serve in the
military out of selfishness. Having said that, I am at least decent enough
to thank the people who serve voluntarily so I can live my self-indulgent
American kick-back life.

There are 3 reasons why people might oppose this war:

1) Some people oppose ALL WAR. Singing Kumbaya does not work when people
want to kill you. As Tommy Franks said a couple weeks ago “WAR IS BAD…BUT
SOMETIMES NOT GOING TO WAR IS WORSE.”
2) Some people simply oppose ANYTHING BUSH SUPPORTS. When winning an
election becomes more important than supporting a just cause, we have lost
our soul as a nation.
3) Some people simply opposed this war on principle. I respect that. Some were against it, I was in favor of it. I will not question their integrity, they should never question mine. However, many have questioned President Bush’s integrity. I THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE TO STATE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH ACTED ON PRINCIPLE, AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS AN ATTACK ON HIM AS A HUMAN BEING. I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I DID SO BASED ON MY CONSCIENCE. I BELIEVE PRESIDENT BUSH DID AS WELL, THE SAME WAY MANY OPPOSED THE WAR BASED ON CONSCIENCE.

When the history books are written, long after we are all gone, I will go to
my grave knowing that President Bush did the right thing. The war was just,
decent & morally right on every level of humanity. I am AGAINST a censure of
President Bush. I am also against the censure of Moveon.org, because as
disgusting as their comments are, free speech requires I accept their right
to spew venom. Voltaire once said “I do not approve of what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it.” I am diametrically opposed
to most anti-war critics politically, but their right to free speech was exercised
appropriately, & my response was appropriate in kind. For those who believe
the war was right, do not recommend censure. Send Mr. Bush a simple, short
thank you note over the internet for helping keep America free & safe in the
tradition of George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK &
Ronald Reagan.

Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for making the world a better place to
live. May God bless you, your family, the men & women in our military, their
families, & free people everywhere. May God bless the USA.

Respectfully,

eric

Many Jewish media institutions such as the Jewish Journal do not understand why a young man would beam with pride at being a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Below is my response to those who want to party like it’s 1932 and FDR is in charge.

To those thinking that Republicans are individuals with blue suits, red and blue diagonal ties, and silver trust-fund encrusted spoons that double as Chardonnay glass swizzle-sticks, I recommend fewer ivory tower stereotypes about gold watches.

 As a 35 year-old “South Park Conservative,” who has attended several Republican Jewish Coalition conferences, I found the RJC conferees hip, young, fun and optimistic. What the Jewish Journal fails to understand is why middle-class people like me are Republicans. The answers are two-fold:

1) My parents are retired teachers who owned no stocks, but did possess common sense. They worked hard, emphasized honor and integrity, and wanted their government to do what government should do: lower their taxes and leave them alone. They left Long Island for South Florida and a lower tax burden in a nicer house.

 2) My father is a Holocaust survivor, rendering me unable to sing Kumbaya with homicidal lunatics whose main objection to the Jewish community (and all Americans) is our obstinate refusal to allow them to murder us.

 WE ARE AT WAR. The fate of the world is at stake. Civilization or barbarism is the choice. Barbarism must lose. Civilization must win. 

Republicans understand that the reason Barbra Streisand can charge people $25,000 per concert and the Jewish Journal can distribute its newspaper is because American soldiers are fighting and dying for these freedoms.

The Republican Party is totally committed to reducing taxes, killing terrorists, and leaving people alone when they wish to teach their children parental values, not governmental values. For these reasons, I, along with ever-increasing multitudes of young Jews, are committed to the GOP.

eric

As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I am disgusted that the democratic party is fawning over itself to lick the (insert pg-rated body part here) of the Iraq Study Group. Being elderly does not automatically make one intelligent, but only Alzheimers or Anti-semitism can explain the ISG.

Blaming Israel for everything that is wrong in the world, and suggesting that we coddle Iran and Syria in the hopes they will like us is insane. Iran and Syria wish to kill every Jew and every American. How do we know this? Because they tell us this on a daily basis.

The democratic party used to at least pay lip service to caring about Jews and Israel. My great grandparents were not murdered so that Americans could advocate singing kumbaya with Syria and Iran, and embrace Elder Senile Statesmen who believe the solution to a war in Iraq is to pressure Israel. The “Israel Surrender Group,” or ISG for short, must never be the basis for serious foreign policy discussions.

I do not agree with President Bush on every issue, but if he promises to use the ISG report as the toilet paper it is, he will have my support. I do not need to sit in an ivory tower and pontificate to know that democracy is good and murderous bloodthirsty Anti-semites are bad. Then again, I am a simple man with simple common sense.

You cannot teach old dogs new tricks. The ISG needs to go the way of Old Yeller. For those who support euthanasia for the weak and sick, I nominate Dr. Kevorkian to let the ISG die with dignity.

eric

One of the major myths about the United States of America is that there is unlimited free speech. There are limits, the most common known ones being yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, or threatening to kill a public figure. Another myth is that entities cannot severely regulate speech. This is also false. Governments have limitations on restricting human speech, but corporations have much more latitude. Try telling sexual dirty jokes in the office and see how quickly you are forced to endure torture that makes the waterboarding at Gitmo seem tame by comparison—a visit to the human resourced department. Being talked to death is still legal in America.

The biggest myth of all is that there is censorship of liberals in America. Liberals scream at the top of their lungs about how America is becoming a police state, and that civil rights are being violated, and that civil liberties are being washed away. Despite all of this, Hollywood liberals, who scream with the best of them, are not being thrown into gulags.

Where there is disagreement is in what constitutes censorship. Government cannot force people to be “nice,” but corporations can. The free marketplace works. Organizing boycotts is not censorship.

When Julia Roberts stated that “If you look up the word republican in the dictionary, you will find it between repugnant and reptilian,” I decided that I would not pay money to see her movies any more. Simply stated, that comment is bigoted. Now I understand that many on the left associate bigotry only towards gays, blacks, arabs, and other sympathetic groups (Jews used to be in this category), but hatred of conservatives, christians and even white people is still bigotry. If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can boycott any food company for producing vanilla extract (ok, I made that up, but they are running out of causes), then I can boycott Julia Roberts for making ideologically bigoted comments (If people say she was joking and that I should “lighten up,” ask them if black people should lighten up when anyone other than Richard Pryor or Chris Rock uses the n-word in a joke)

Rosie O’Donnell today suggested that the British Government deliberately had their own soldiers kidnapped to create a rationale for starting a war with Iran. Now Rosie O’Donnell did not offer any proof for these outrageous, incendiary comments. For one thing, she does not have to do so. She is not required to provide an opposing viewpoint. Her program is not a democracy (liberals who want to enforce the fairness doctrine to stop Rush Limbaugh should realize it would silence Rosie O’Donnell as well). She has every right to spout her viewpoints. So how does she get stopped?

First of all, do not attack her physical characteristics. Whether or not she is “fat,” or “ugly,” is subjective, and serves no purpose other than to further deepen the public discourse. It plays down to her level. If she were as gorgeous as Angie Harmon (Did Jason Sehorn hit the jackpot or what? No wonder he retired from football. If I were married to Angie Harmon I would not want to leave the bedroom, much less leave home and go to work. Every time on “Law and Order,” she threatened to execute a criminal with her bare hands, I could picture her cracking a whip while wearing a black leather…)

Sorry, I disappeared for a sec. Ok, back To Rosie, Queen of Morona. ABC has “the view.” ABC is owned by Disney. If enough people were to sell their Disney stock, or boycott Disney theme parks, or simply stop watching ABC altogether, the network would feel the heat and fire her. For those of you who simply cannot live without watching Eva Longoria traipsing around in her undies on ABC’s Desperate Housewives (she needs a hot lesbo scene with Angie Harmon), have your friends Tivo it. Or they could watch it for you. Think of it as a tv version of Al Gore’s “carbon credits” (now see how intelligent that comes across?).

Getting Rosie O’Donnell fired is not censorship. She should not be banned. However she can be fired. This worked with Bill Maher. Liberals who howl that this is a bullying tactic seem to be ok with it when it is a conservative being forced off the air, such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

Martin Luther King Jr. stated that the goal is not to try and win over the bigots, but the mass amount of silent moderates. I do not need a poll or a focus group to know that most people find Rosie O’Donnell’s comments today disgusting. This is because most Americans find any kind of hateful speech disgusting. We are a nation of good people, and we do not like verbal bombthrowers. We like civility.

This is why when Moveon.org and the Deaniacs show 2 million screaming nut jobs, the republican party prays that they keep speaking. The other 268 million Americans, even some who agree with their message (whatever that message is, not sure if even they know), do not like their bullying tactics. We do not ban Moveon.org from speaking. As I said, republicans want them to speak more. However, we can fire them by voting against their candidates. They are 0 for 26 in elections (They will eventually win one, and then claim they were right all along), and the demagogic party will either embrace them and continue to lose elections, or lock them in a political asylum until after the election.

I was once told that my house was not a democracy. However, in one sense it was. I had free will to make choices. I could do my homework, or I could get a royal rump-kicking. I weighed the options, and homework did not sound so bad. People have the right to be jack@sses. Forcing them to confront that enough people feel this way is not censorship. It is the free market. So go ahead and yell about having the right to burn the American flag. Just do not claim censorship when most Americans detest your action.

When Sean Penn criticizes the violence of George W. Bush, remind Sean Penn that he was the guy who physically beat Madonna. Dubya does not beat Laura. Civilized people do not beat their spouses. When Ted Kennedy pounds the table of righteousness, ask him who was driving the car. When Alec Baldwin threatens to stone Henry Hyde’s children, ask him why Kim Basinger divorced him (not everyone appreciates violent rages). People have a right to speak. They also have a right to not only not be taken at face value, but be challenged when their behavior and deeds do not match their words.

The goal is a better world…a better society. Rosie O’Donnell was once on VH 1, and she was known as the “Queen of Nice.” While it might be fun to drive her into the ground for all the bullying she has done, a better result would be to have the marketplace fire her from enough jobs until she either disappears from the public eye…or better yet…decided to go back to being the Queen of Nice.

So Rosie can continue being the Queen of Morona or she can knock it off. If I burn a Minnie Mouse doll in effigy, no one would care. If 100,000 people young girls did this…it would send a message to Disney. Once she is fired, the world can get back to watching actual news, such as the fact that15 noble British soldiers are being held hostage by Iranian lunatics. Whether or not ABC prefers to tell that version of the story or Rosie’s version in the coming days could determine their fate as a network…if enough Americans give in to their power of greatness and demand goodness.

eric

In the brilliant comic strip “Dilbert,” the main worker bee is confronted with the dysfunctional goings on in his office. Fat and balding, he is destined to a cubicle as others leapfrog past him on the corporate ladder. One final straw comes when the boss tells Dilbert “This is Bob. He has no experience in this industry, but he is tall, and has perfect hair. He is your new manager.”

It is with more than a hint of irony that at a time in history where substance is desired more than ever, a promising candidate for President is bogged down for the shallowest of stylistic reasons.

Mitt Romney is tall, and yes he does have perfect hair. Not good hair. Perfect hair. As a heterosexual male, I have to confess that the guy is handsome. His square jaw reminds me of a cross between Dick Tracy and the overexaggerated cartoon character “American Dad.” It is unfortunate that the focus on Mitt Romney’s style obscures a substantive career based on success.

Mitt Romney saved the Olympics at Salt Lake City, Utah. A corrupt endeavor besotted by financial mismanagement needed a business leader…someone who could get through bureaucracy and simply get things done. Yet despite his right to chest-thump at a well done job, he instead chose to engage in a self-deprecating manner. At the Century Plaza Hotel for the annual California Republican Party Convention, Mitt Romney joked about his Olympic triumph. He stated “My sons told me that as long as they lived, they never thought they would see their dad on the front page of the sports section.” In another one liner that had the crowd in hysterical laughter he spoke about his confrontational approach to the Massachusetts legislature. “People in Massachusetts say that Arnold Schwarzenegger gets along better with democrats in the legislature than I do in Massachusetts. He should get along better with democrats. He’s sleeping with one.”

This leads to another irony concerning Mitt Romney. The biggest criticism of Romney by some conservatives is not his confrontational manner, but his comity. He gets along well with the democratic Massachusetts legislature. In a time of polarization, sleeping with the enemy is not to be tolerated. Having said that just because many democrats agreed with Ronald Reagan did not mean he agreed with them. Being genial is not the same as compromising, and occasionally reaching an agreement with a political opponent is not necessarily an abdication of beliefs. Outsiders and backbenchers can speak about ideological purity, but leaders have to get things done.

Mitt Romney helped pass a health care bill. Those who criticize the bill have not given it enough time to see if their criticisms have panned out. It is too soon. Additionally, this bill is not Hillarycare. It is not Ted Kennedy’s plan. Yes Ted Kennedy’s name is on it, but then again Ted Kennedy will block any popular bill that he does not get partial credit for. His name being on it does not automatically invalidate it.

As for other issues, Mitt Romney is being portrayed as the one thing that no square jawed man should ever be seen as…a flip flopper…especially not on abortion. He was pro-choice when running for Governor of Massachusetts, and now he is pro-life when running for president. This is in contrast to principled leaders such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson, who were all pro-life before running for the democratic nomination for president. George HW Bush in 1980 ran as the pro-choice republican candidate, yet in 1988 he was ardently pro-life. Steve Forbes went rightward between 1996 and 2000. So why should Mitt Romney be given a pass? Because he Governed Massachusetts.

It is one thing to have an ideology. It is another to be an ideologue. Ideologues make bombastic speeches. Pragmatists win elections, and get to govern, aka get things done. Conservatives are not welcome in Massachusetts. Republicans yes, but not conservatives. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. He lost Massachusetts. A democrat would have to kill someone before being defeated. In some cases, even that is not enough. Massachusetts will elect libertarian republicans such as William Weld and Mitt Romney. The state has allowed Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry to lead them. Short of praying that global warming causes melting polar ice caps to flood the state until it breaks off, floats away, and joins Antarctica, Massachusetts republicans have to field candidates who will support cutting taxes and killing terrorists. Period.

Another criticism of Mitt Romney is that he is a Mormon. This should be of deep concern to anyone who is bigoted. For those of you who are concerned that I just declared that anyone who opposed Mitt Romney solely because he is a Mormon is bigoted, well stop being bigoted and then this concern will dissipate. JFK was a Catholic. Joseph Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. Even those in America who are white Christians are subdivided between Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and other multi-syllabic derivatives of Christianity. As a Jewish person, I have no idea how they are different. That does not mean they are less than noble religions. It means I am as uneducated as every other kid who went to public schools (Maybe Mitt Romney can fix that. Even if he can’t, neither can anyone else. He’s not Superman).

The current struggle with Islam is not that Islamists want to practice Islam. It is that they want everyone else to submit to Islam. When I met Mitt Romney, and spoke to him, he did not seem to have any interest in converting me to Mormonism. He seemed more interested in speaking about tax cuts. Having religious faith does not mean one forces others to share this faith. Belief in God does not mean the person is God. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. These are all old cliches, but the hostility towards many who express pride in their religion is even more tiresome. Whatever the Mormon equivalent of Sharia law, Mitt Romney seems more interested in the US Constitution as a governing body. As long as he supports Supreme Court Justices that agree with this philosophy, he is a conservative in the truest sense.

Lastly, on the subject of Sharia law, Mitt Romney does not want US Citizens to be subjected to it. His aggressive speeches concerning the War on Terror show a man who understands that the struggle for our livelihood as free citizens goes beyond anything we have faced in our lifetimes. Mitt Romney is Pro-America, Pro-Israel, and anti-enemies of free people. We know this because he emphatically says so in his speeches. He does not complain about how quickly to surrender. He understands that leadership is not about carping. It is about rolling up sleeves and getting to work.

I am not saying Mitt Romney can do anything. However, cutting taxes in Massachusetts is simply impressive. He is likable, genial, and successful. He is not an artificial candidate or a “pretty boy.” Think of him as being as handsome as John Edwards, only with realistic solutions to important problems.

The last thing to think about is something that is applied to all the candidates. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1982. Therefore, every candidate deserves one get out of jail free card, or a mulligan for those of you who dress badly and wear checkered trousers.

If the worst we can say about Mitt Romney is that his religion is not understood by most, then his detractors should throw in the towel. Mitt Romney is a good decent man who deserves to be considered a serious presidential contender. No he is not perfect. Nothing in life is perfect. Even his hair is not completely perfect. Well, yeah…it is.

eric